Re: [CR]moser

(Example: Racing:Wayne Stetina)

In-Reply-To: <D77097D6-FC60-4369-A8EE-1C9122377A32@socal.rr.com>
References: <EBDD1B18-DB90-4CD4-9914-54DF5347DFE7@tin.it> <20080428090348.34930@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:48:10 -0700
To: John Waner <x76911s@socal.rr.com>, "kim klakow" <Akimbo71@gmx.net>
From: "Jan Heine" <heine94@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]moser
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

Every couple of months, we get a famous bike on this list, and most of the time, it turns out to be just a normal old bike. Perhaps it is time to establish some standards for what we accept as authentication? Does a letter from the maker, obtained recently, really prove that a bike is what we think it is?

I believe the answer is no, unless it is based on serial numbers or other period records, or clear identifying marks.

A lot of people think the makers keep track of history, and know exactly when something was introduced, when a date stamp changed, who rode which bike, etc.

In my research for Bicycle Quarterly, I have found that, with very rare exceptions, most makers look forward, to the future, because they have a company to run. They have a fuzzy-warm feeling about the past, but the details often have slipped from their minds, because they never cared much about them in the first place. There is a quote of Colin Chapman, when shown his first production sports car, the ground-braking 1950s Elite, late in his life. Rather than being overcome with nostalgia, all he had to say was: "I did not remember how narrow they were." His mind was firmly in the future, always on the next project.

So if you ask a maker: "Do you think this bike I found really was ridden by xyz? Can you identify it from photos?" the only correct answer would be "I don't know."

In many cases, a builder will want to spoil your fun, and what harm does it do, anyhow? So you may get a reply: "Sure, yes, it looks like the bikes we made for Moser. It seems that you have an incredible treasure there. Wonderful!" And with that, they have made you happy.

Imagine if they said "I don't know." Half the owners would come back and ask: "Please, can't you look through your records? Can I bring by the bike and have you examine it?" and so on, and if the maker doesn't have time, the bike owner may get upset, and post online that De Rosa doesn't care about their history, and is just interested in making money, etc.

Europe's museums are full of historic bikes that aren't. I have seen a 56 cm Bianchi ridden by Fausto Coppi (he rode at least a 59 cm frame!), and a Jacques Anquetil bike where the seatstay caps were engraved "J - A" as shown on some Rebour drawings. However, careful inspection showed that the engraved seatstay caps were crudely brazed OVER the original seatstay caps! The museum's owner replied: "How do you know they did not always constructed their bikes that way?"

So what do we need to accept a bike as real?

Obviously, all the features of the bike need to match the original photos and drawings, or there must be traces of modifications that show that the bike originally matched the description. Beyond that, there must be a clear trail that identifies the bike.

So what do we accept as "provenance"? I suggest serial numbers are good, if there are records at the factory. (Of course, serial numbers can be faked. Harry Butler in Britain used to sell fake Thanets with serial numbers that matched the surviving records, but the font was not the same.)

If the bike came from the original racer, that is useful. Even if the original racer tried to sell a fake, they rarely have the means (and knowledge - see above) to make a convincing fake.

I am sure there are other ways to authenticate a bike - let's discuss this a bit.

Jan Heine
Editor
Bicycle Quarterly
140 Lakeside Ave #C
Seattle WA 98122
http://www.bikequarterly.com